Urgnok's page

Lately, I've been noticing a lot of errors/issues in some of the more recent books/remasters and it's gotten to the point where I now feel compelled to say something.

I'm used to the typical Paizo problems. My groups been playing pf1e and pf2e for a long time. We've experienced just about everything, from caravan combat to circus performances. I'm used to poorly designed campaign mechanics and unbalanced encounters, but this last campaign we just went through had errors that went beyond just bad game design.

We just finished Triumph of the Tusk and the second book was a nightmare. Littered with inconsistencies, mixing up characters, conflicting information, typos... Which A) made it a pain to GM and B) raised concerns about the direction Paizo is going. What made me even more upset is that when I looked into these errors with that particular book, someone had already highlighted every single major discrepancy in the book, months prior, with no reply or acknowledgement from the staff. It wasn't fixed by the time I played through it, and something tells me it still isn't fixed.

These errors in the Triumph of the Tusk and the errors present in Treasure Vault remastered, are concerning. It gives the impression that the company is rushing releases and not allowing time for proper editing and playtesting.

I love Pathfinder. I've loved Pathfinder for the last decade. I will continue to love Pathfinder, but Pazio needs to get its act together.

I implore Paizo to do a better job at editing and playtesting with their future releases. I look forward to the next string of pathfinder products and hope that the deficiencies plaguing Pathfinder 2e are soon a thing of the past.

So my players and I were going over some of the Exemplar Ikons when we came across Titan's Breaker. When reading the Transcendence, there was some confusion on how to interpret the wording.

The Transcendence reads "Your spirit is so dense it takes on tangible
force. Make a melee Strike with the titan’s breaker. This
counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple
attack penalty. If this Strike hits, your additional spirit
damage from the ikon’s immanence increases to 4 plus an
extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level,
it’s increased to 6 spirit damage and two extra dice, and if
you’re at least 18th level, it’s increased to 8 spirit damage
and three extra dice."

The relevant portions up to debate were "If this Strike hits, your additional spirit damage from the ikon’s immanence increases to 4 plus an
extra die of weapon damage..." and "The titan’s breaker deals 2 additional spirit damage per weapon damage die to creatures it Strikes." from the immanence

Now, there were several different arguments on how this ability works.
Using a Maul as an example.
X= # of damage dice Y= 4+1d12

Option A) Xd12+X(Y)
The transcendence retains the imminence's scaling with weapon damage dice

Option B) Xd12+Y
The transcendence loses the imminence's scaling with weapon damage dice

Option C) Xd12+4X+1d12
The transcendence only retains the imminence's scaling with weapon damage dice, but only for the increased spirit damage.

Options A and B are the most literal of the interpretations, while option C was what some members of my group thought was the intended effect.

I'm sure that the wording for Fracture Mountains will be changed in a future errata, but until then I'm not sure what to do.

My group has been playing Pathfinder since 2015, and we've almost exclusively played the 1-17/1-20 APs. When we heard that the death of Gorum was going to be in an 11-20 campaign, we were all very disappointed. I know you've mentioned that 1-20 campaigns aren't completely off the table, but from what I understand, there are no current plans for another 1-20 AP. Is that correct?

My group is an outlier in terms of playtime and consistency. We play every Saturday from 12:00 to 00:00, and we've done that for the past 10 years or so. We make it through a six-book AP in about six months. We purposefully waited until 2e had a decent backlog of APs before switching over from 1e to avoid blowing through all the available content too quickly. With the news that there are no plans for additional 1-20 APs, we are concerned for the future.

As of now, we plan on linking together some 1-10 campaigns and 11-20 campaigns. Our issue with that method is the lack of narrative connection between these campaigns. A few of them, like Quest for the Frozen Flame, occur in a time and place that makes connecting a higher-level AP to it almost impossible. There's also a severe lack of higher-level three-book APs.

The point is, we play a lot of Pathfinder. We buy a lot of books. We want more 1-20 campaigns. It is our preferred method of playing. I understand that you want to tell the right stories and that the shorter APs might make more sense for your future plans. I just want you all to know that we are a group of avid Pathfinder players who deeply enjoy your content and want more six-book APs. Soon, please. We are running out.

Here's the situation, my group is playing the "Wrath of the Righteous" campaign and all our characters are mythic. One of the characters has the mythic path abilities 'cage enemy" and "retributive reach". A flying monster dropped to the square adjacent to the character and made a fly check to hover once within melee range. Given these circumstances, does the act of falling through the characters threatened squares provoke an attack of opportunity? And if not, what is to stop someone from exploiting that mechanic in order to avoid ever taking an attack of opportunity?